DOCSLIB.ORG

Validity of Altmetrics Data for Measuring Societal Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Validity of Altmetrics Data for Measuring Societal Impact Accepted for publication in the Journal of Informetrics Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Can altmetric data be validly used for the measurement of societal impact? The current study seeks to answer this question with a comprehensive dataset (about 100,000 records) from very disparate sources (F1000, Altmetric, and an in-house database based on Web of Science). In the F1000 peer review system, experts attach particular tags to scientific papers which indicate whether a paper could be of interest for science or rather for other segments of society. The results show that papers with the tag “good for teaching” do achieve higher altmetric counts than papers without this tag – if the quality of the papers is controlled. At the same time, a higher citation count is shown especially by papers with a tag that is specifically scientifically oriented (“new finding”). The findings indicate that papers tailored for a readership outside the area of research should lead to societal impact. If altmetric data is to be used for the measurement of societal impact, the question arises of its normalization. In bibliometrics, citations are normalized for the papers’ subject area and publication year. This study has taken a second analytic step involving a possible normalization of altmetric data. As the results show there are particular scientific topics which are of especial interest for a wide audience. Since these more or less interesting topics are not completely reflected in Thomson Reuters’ journal sets, a normalization of altmetric data should not be based on the level of subject categories, but on the level of topics. Key words altmetrics; bibliometrics; F1000; Twitter; societal impact 2 1 Introduction In science policy it was assumed into the 1990s that society can benefit most from a science which pursues research at a high level. Correspondingly, indicators were (and are) used in scientometrics, such as citation counts, which measure the impact of research on science itself. Since the 1990s a trend can be observed in science policy no longer to assume that society benefits from a science pursued at a high level (Bornmann, 2012, 2013). It is now expected that the benefit for society be demonstrated. Thus, for example, organizations which support research (such as, for example, the US National Science Foundation) now expect that supported projects lead to an outcome which is of interest not solely to science. For these organizations the consequence for the peer review procedure is that not only the possible scientific yield of the project has to be assessed, but also the returns for other sections of society. These days, scientific work is not assessed solely on the basis of the peer review procedure, but also with indicators. A good example of these quantitative assessments is university ranking (Hazelkorn, 2011). The most important indicators in this connection (not only with university ranking) are bibliometric indicators based on publications and their citations (Vinkler, 2010). The impact of research is generally measured with citations. Since the impact of one publication on another publication is measured here, citations measure the impact of research on research itself. Citations allow a determination as to whether research (for example in institutions or countries) is being pursued at the highest level on average or not. But citations cannot be used to measure the impact of research on other sections of society. This is why scientometrics has taken up the wish in science policy to measure the impact of research beyond the confines of science, and is seeking new possibilities for impact measurement (Bornmann, 2014). With societal impact assessments the (1) social, (2) cultural, (3) environmental and (4) economic returns (impact and effects) from results (research 3 output) or products (research outcome) of publicly funded research are measured (Bornmann, 2013). Currently the most favored procedure for measuring societal impact involves case studies, which, however, are seen as too time-consuming and therefore less practicable. An attractive possibility for measuring societal impact is seen in altmetrics (short for alternative metrics) (Mohammadi & Thelwall, 2014). “Altmetrics refers to data sources, tools, and metrics (other than citations) that provide potentially relevant information on the impact of scientific outputs (e.g., the number of times a publication has been tweeted, shared on Facebook, or read in Mendeley). Altmetrics opens the door to a broader interpretation of the concept of impact and to more diverse forms of impact analysis” (Waltman & Costas, 2014, p. 433). An overview of various altmetrics may be obtained from Priem and Hemminger (2010). Twitter (www.twitter.com), for example, is the best known microblogging application. This application allows the user to post short messages (tweets) of up to 140 characters. “These tweets can be categorized, shared, sent directly to other users and linked to websites or scientific papers … Currently there are more than 200 million active Twitter users who post over 400 million tweets per day” (Darling, Shiffman, Côté, & Drew, 2013). Priem and Costello (2010) define tweets as Twitter citations if they contain a direct or indirect link to a peer-reviewed scholarly article. These Twitter citations can be counted and assessed as an alternative metric for papers. There are already a number of studies concerning altmetrics. An overview of these studies can be found in Bar-Ilan, Shema, and Thelwall (2014), Haustein (2014), and Priem (2014). Many of these studies have measured the correlation between citations and altmetrics. Since the correlations were often at a moderate level, the results are difficult to interpret: Both metrics seem to measure something similar but not identical. The studies published so far cannot yet provide a satisfactory answer to the question whether altmetrics is appropriate for the measurement of societal impact or not. That is the reason for this investigation of the question. 4 In January 2002, a new type of peer-review system has been launched, in which about 5000 Faculty members are asked “to identify, evaluate and comment on the most interesting papers they read for themselves each month – regardless of the journal in which they appear” (Wets, Weedon, & Velterop, 2003, p. 251). What is known as the Faculty of 1000 (F1000) peer review system is accordingly not an ex-ante assessment of manuscripts provided for publication in a journal, but an ex-post assessment of papers which have already been published in journals. The Faculty members also attach tags to the papers indicating their relevance for science (e.g. “new finding”), but which can also serve other purposes. One example of the tags which the members can attach is “good for teaching”. Papers can be marked in this way if they represent a key paper in a field, are well written, provide a good overview of a topic, and/or are well suited as literature for students. Papers marked with this tag can be expected to have an impact beyond science itself (that means societal impact), unlike papers without this tag. If altmetrics indicate a greater impact for papers with this tag than those without, this would suggest that altmetrics measure societal impact. This study is essentially based on a dataset with papers (and their evaluations and tags from Faculty members) extracted from F1000 (see also Mohammadi & Thelwall, 2013). This dataset was extended with further data – bibliometric (e.g. citation counts) and altmetric (e.g. Twitter counts). There follows in the next sections a comparison of altmetric counts with citation counts, to investigate the differences between the two metrics in relation to tags and recommendations. 2 Methods 2.1 Peer ratings provided by F1000 F1000 is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This service is part of the Science Navigation Group, a group of independent companies that publish and develop information services for the 5 professional biomedical community and the consumer market. F1000 Biology was launched in 2002 and F1000 Medicine in 2006. The two services were merged in 2009 today constitute the F1000 database. Papers for F1000 are selected by a peer-nominated global “Faculty” of leading scientists and clinicians who then rate them and explain their importance (F1000, 2012). This means that only a restricted set of papers from the medical and biological journals covered is reviewed, and most of the papers are actually not (Kreiman & Maunsell, 2011; Wouters & Costas, 2012). The Faculty nowadays numbers more than 5,000 experts worldwide, assisted by 5,000 associates, which are organized into more than 40 subjects (which are further subdivided into over 300 sections). On average, 1,500 new recommendations are contributed by the Faculty each month (F1000, 2012). Faculty members can choose and evaluate any paper that interests them; however, “the great majority pick papers published within the past month, including advance online papers, meaning that users can be made aware of important papers rapidly” (Wets, et al., 2003, p. 254). Although many papers published in popular and high-profile journals (e.g. Nature, New England Journal of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zukunftskolleg Newsletter | Konstanz | March – September 2014 | Issue No
    Zukunftskolleg Newsletter | Konstanz | March – September 2014 | Issue No. 19 | Page 1 Zukunftskolleg Newsletter What has been going on at the Zukunftskolleg over summer term 2014? – The response to various calls for our funding programs was tremendous, not only for the Fellowship and Mentorship programs, but also for the two new programs we just launched: Interdisciplinary Collaborative Projects and Transdepartmental Collaborative Teaching. During the last few months, the Zukunftskolleg community welcomed new 2-year Postdoctoral and 5-year Research Fellows as well as Senior Fellows, Mentors and Associate Fellows. At the same time, some of the “old” Fellows left us and took on challenging positions in academia. In addition, all Fellows were successful in obtaining grants, giving lectures or publishing their latest research results. Read more on the following pages. Concerning the Zukunftskolleg Executive Committee Table of Contents During the first Jour Fixe in summer term Concerning the Zukunftskolleg ................... 1 2014, on April 24, the assembly of members Funding Instruments .................................... 2 elected Monika Class as the new member of Events ............................................................. 4 the Executive Committee. She replaces Doris Invited Talks ................................................ 20 Penka, whose term of office ended after 2.5 Participation in Workshops, Symposia, years. We congratulate Monika Class and Conferences ................................................ 24 thank Doris
    [Show full text]
  • Publisher Profile-Palgrave Macmillan Ltd
    Against the Grain Volume 25 | Issue 1 Article 35 February 2013 Publisher Profile-Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation (2013) "Publisher Profile-Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.," Against the Grain: Vol. 25: Iss. 1, Article 35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6436 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. From the Reference Desk from page 52 againstpublisher the grain profile and concepts, it reflects the increasing profes- sionalization of trauma studies as a discipline. The approach is substantive and scholarly Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. but accessible to students and the informed lay reader. Many academic libraries will be Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS tempted to place this single-volume reference in their circulating collections. (This title is Phone: +44 (0)1256 329242 also available online via SAGE Knowledge.) Porters South & Porters North, Crinan St., London N1 9XW Phone: +44 (0)20 7833 4000 Global Social Issues: An Encyclopedia 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010 (2012, 978-0-7656-8292-5, $349) from Sharpe Phone: (646) 307-5151 Reference deals with a much broader topic www.palgrave.com and is intended for a broader audience than SAGE’s Encyclopedia of Trauma. Edited by veteran encyclopedia editor James Climent AFFILIATED COMPANIES: Macmillan Publishers Ltd; The Holtzbrinck Group. and Christopher G. Bates of California KEY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES: Our academic publishing programme includes journals, State Polytechnic Institute at Pomona, this monographs, Palgrave Pivots, professional and reference works, in print and online.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Altmetric Scores of Open Access Articles and of Articles
    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Heft 444 Altmetrics and Open Access Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sciences von Lea Satzinger Altmetrics and Open Access Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sciences von Lea Satzinger Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft Begründet von Peter Zahn Herausgegeben von Vivien Petras Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Heft 444 Satzinger, Lea Altmetrics and Open Access : Comparison of Altmetric Scores of open and closed access articles published by German research institutions in the field of natural sci- ences / von Lea Satzinger. - Berlin : Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswis- senschaft der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2019. – 81 S. : 15 Abb. - (Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft ; 444) ISSN 14 38-76 62 Abstract Altmetrics, in contrast to traditional metrics, measure the societal impact research outputs have on the public in general, using social media platforms as their primary data sources. In this study, differences in Altmetric Scores between open and closed access articles of German research institutions in the field of natural sciences have been analyzed. For this investigation data from the years 2013 to 2017 was gathered from Web of Science, Altmetric.com and Unpaywall. Results indicated that arti- cles published in open access gain higher Altmetric Attention Scores compared to articles behind subscription paywalls, although the difference was statistically not significant. Research outputs published in gold open access had the highest scores, followed by articles in green and then hybrid open access.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Journal Palgrave Communications Publishes First Papers High Quality, Multidisciplinary Journal Across the Humanities and Social Sciences Launches Today
    Open Access journal Palgrave Communications publishes first papers High quality, multidisciplinary journal across the humanities and social sciences launches today January 20 2014 – Palgrave Communications, the new high quality open access (OA) online-only, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary journal will publish its first articles today. The papers, which are all free to access, span a wide range of disciplines including international studies, political science, theatre and performance studies, and operational research. The first edition of the journal includes a commentary by Dr W. James Jacob, Institute for International Studies in Education, University of Pittsburgh, on interdisciplinary research trends in higher education. This is the first of several articles that will discuss interdisciplinary research, which is much needed to help tackle global challenges such as migration and water scarcity but can be difficult within the traditional culture of academia. Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Head of Data and HSS Publishing, Open Research at Nature Publishing Group/Palgrave Macmillan said: “Palgrave Communications was launched in response to demand from academics in the humanities and social sciences and business for a high quality journal that operates a fully open access publishing model, and which promotes interdisciplinary research. We believe that this first batch of papers reflects these goals excellently.” Palgrave Communications was launched after a global survey of academics in the humanities and social sciences, where 82% said that they would publish OA if the best or most appropriate journal were OA. 68% thought that their specific area of interest would benefit from journals that publish peer-reviewed OA. Dr Michele Acuto, Senior Lecturer in Global Networks & Diplomacy, Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy at University College London said: “As well as being a multi-disciplinary journal, Palgrave Communications is seeking to offer a space for more in-depth and professionalized interdisciplinarity to flourish.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploratory Analysis of Publons Metrics and Their Relationship with Bibliometric and Altmetric Impact
    Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact José Luis Ortega Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC), Córdoba, Spain, [email protected] Abstract Purpose: This study aims to analyse the metrics provided by Publons about the scoring of publications and their relationship with impact measurements (bibliometric and altmetric indicators). Design/methodology/approach: In January 2018, 45,819 research articles were extracted from Publons, including all their metrics (scores, number of pre and post reviews, reviewers, etc.). Using the DOI identifier, other metrics from altmetric providers were gathered to compare the scores of those publications in Publons with their bibliometric and altmetric impact in PlumX, Altmetric.com and Crossref Event Data (CED). Findings: The results show that (1) there are important biases in the coverage of Publons according to disciplines and publishers; (2) metrics from Publons present several problems as research evaluation indicators; and (3) correlations between bibliometric and altmetric counts and the Publons metrics are very weak (r<.2) and not significant. Originality/value: This is the first study about the Publons metrics at article level and their relationship with other quantitative measures such as bibliometric and altmetric indicators. Keywords: Publons, Altmetrics, Bibliometrics, Peer-review 1. Introduction Traditionally, peer-review has been the most appropriate way to validate scientific advances. Since the first beginning of the scientific revolution, scientific theories and discoveries were discussed and agreed by the research community, as a way to confirm and accept new knowledge. This validation process has arrived until our days as a suitable tool for accepting the most relevant manuscripts to academic journals, allocating research funds or selecting and promoting scientific staff.
    [Show full text]
  • THE OA EFFECT: HOW DOES OPEN ACCESS AFFECT the USAGE of SCHOLARLY BOOKS? White Paper
    springernature.com Illustration inspired by the work of Jean-Claude Bradley Open Research THE OA EFFECT: HOW DOES OPEN ACCESS AFFECT THE USAGE OF SCHOLARLY BOOKS? White paper Open Research: Journals, books, data and tools from: 2 The OA effect: How does open access affect the usage of scholarly books? springernature.com Contents Authors Foreword . 3 Christina Emery, Mithu Lucraft, Executive summary . 4 Agata Morka, Ros Pyne Introduction . 5 November 2017 Part 1: Quantitative findings . 6 Summary . 6 Downloads . 7 Citations and mentions . 11 Part 2: Qualitative findings . 13 Summary . 13 Reasons for publishing open access . 14 Experience of publishing open access . 15 The future of open access . 16 Discussion . 18 Conclusion and recommendations . 20 Acknowledgements . 22 Contacts . 23 About Springer Nature and OA books . 24 Appendices . 26 Appendix 1: Definitions and limitations . 26 Appendix 2: Methodology . 27 Appendix 3: Top 10 downloaded books . 29 Appendix 4: Interviewed authors and funders . 30 Appendix 5: Author questionnaire . 32 Appendix 6: Funder questionnaire . 33 Appendix 7: References . 34 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0) The OA effect: How does open access affect the usage of scholarly books? springernature.com 3 Foreword Springer Nature was created in 2015, but from our earliest days as Springer, Palgrave Macmillan and Nature, we have been publishing monographs and long-form research for some 175 years. The changing environment for book publishing has created both opportunities and challenges for researchers and their funders, for publishers, and for the wider community of readers and educators. As a publisher, we have championed new models of scholarship, introducing ebooks in 2006, and our first open access (OA) book in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-Rater Reliability and Convergent Validity of F1000prime Peer Review
    Accepted for publication in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology Inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review Lutz Bornmann Division for Science and Innovation Studies Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on around 100,000 papers with recommendations from Faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between Faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies which have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the Faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also connected with better performance of the papers. Keywords F1000; F1000Prime; Peer review; Highly cited papers; Adjusted predictions; Adjusted predictions at representative values 2 1 Introduction The first known cases of peer-review in science were undertaken in 1665 for the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Bornmann, 2011). Today, peer review is the backbone of science (Benda & Engels, 2011); without a functioning and generally accepted evaluation instrument, the significance of research could hardly be evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMISSION from SPRINGER NATURE Making Plan S Successful
    PLAN S IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE: SUBMISSION FROM SPRINGER NATURE Springer Nature welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the cOAlition S Implementation Guidance and contribute to the discussion on how the transition to Open Access (OA) can be accelerated. Our submission below focuses mainly on the second question posed in the consultation: Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs? Making Plan S successful: a commitment to open access Springer Nature is dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing and Open Research techniques. As the world’s largest OA publisher we are a committed partner for cOAlition S funders in achieving this goal which is also the primary focus of Plan S. Our recommendations below are therefore presented with the aim of achieving this goal. As a first mover, we know the (multiple) challenges that need to be overcome: funding flows that need to change, a lack of cooperation in funder policies, a lack of global coordination, the need for a cultural change in researcher assessment and metrics in research, academic disciplines that lack OA resources, geographic differences in levels of research output making global “Publish and Read” deals difficult and, critically, an author community that does not yet view publishing OA as a priority. While this uncertainty remains, we need the benefits of OA to be better described and promoted as well as support for the ways that enable us and other publishers to cope with the rapidly increasing demand. We therefore propose cOAlition S adopt the following six recommendations which we believe are necessary to deliver Plan S’s primary goal of accelerating the take-up of OA globally while minimising costs to funders and other stakeholders: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Visit the Website at Journals.Com/Palcomms to Access
    5 Open access funding support service Palgrave Macmillan offers a free open access support service to make it easier for our authors to discover and apply for APC funding. We can: Publishing my article with Palgrave Communications • Provide personal information on the open access funds available to you. was a terrific experience. Being a broad-interest • Direct you to the correct open access funding coordinator at your institution/ Offering authors the option to publish open access research across a journal, my article was seen by scholars outside my funding body. variety of formats including, journal articles, monographs and Palgrave immediate discipline as well as people outside the • Provide advice about compliance with funders’ and institutions’ open access policies. Pivot publications ensuring your research is made freely available to academy, an increasingly important factor these • Supply you with the information and advice required to complete an open access the widest audience possible. days and a very attractive aspect for me. funding application. Professor Mark D. White, A number of research funders and institutions now make funding available to support OA College of Staten Island / CUNY, US monographs. The Palgrave Macmillan funding support service can provide personal advice on what OA monograph funding is available to you. Working with Palgrave Communications exposes As authors exploring interdisciplinarity in one to high quality, topical, interdisciplinary, and There are over 150 journal open access article processing charge (APC) funds available to the making, the ease and rapidity with which HSS researchers world wide. most importantly, accessible research. Helping we could publish open access in Palgrave with the Global Governance collection as an Communications allowed us to unfurl our associate editor and a reviewer has been very ideas and methods, to a wide community of Europe: beneficial.
    [Show full text]
  • SPRINGER NATURE Products, Services & Solutions 2 Springer Nature Products, Services & Solutions Springernature.Com
    springernature.com Illustration inspired by the work of Marie Curie SPRINGER NATURE Products, Services & Solutions 2 Springer Nature Products, Services & Solutions springernature.com About Springer Nature Springer Nature advances discovery by publishing robust and insightful research, supporting the development of new areas of knowledge, making ideas and information accessible around the world, and leading the way on open access. Our journals, eBooks, databases and solutions make sure that researchers, students, teachers and professionals have access to important research. Springer Established in 1842, Springer is a leading global scientific, technical, medical, humanities and social sciences publisher. Providing researchers with quality content via innovattive products and services, Springer has one of the most significant science eBooks and archives collections, as well as a comprehensive range of hybrid and open access journals. Nature Research Publishing some of the most significant discoveries since 1869. Nature Research publishes the world’s leading weekly science journal, Nature, in addition to Nature- branded research and review subscription journals. The portfolio also includes Nature Communications, the leading open access journal across all sciences, plus a variety of Nature Partner Journals, developed with institutions and societies. Academic journals on nature.com Prestigious titles in the clinical, life and physical sciences for communities and established medical and scientific societies, many of which are published in partnership a society. Adis A leading international publisher of drug-focused content and solutions. Adis supports work in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, medical research, practice and teaching, drug regulation and reimbursement as well as related finance and consulting markets. Apress A technical publisher of high-quality, practical content including over 3000 titles for IT professionals, software developers, programmers and business leaders around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 2444 2015 Author Insights Survey ST5 Amended.Indd
    Overview The annual Author Insights Survey, run by Nature Publishing Group (NPG) and our sister company Palgrave Macmillan forms part of a wider research programme which aims to understand general author attitudes and behaviours around publishing, to track any changes over time. The survey enables us to provide the best service for our authors, and keeps us close to the views of our community. The survey is conducted for internal purposes each year to provide longitudinal data and track changes in attitudes and behaviours. This year’s survey included questions on topics as diverse as factors that contribute to a journal’s reputation, the value of services offered by publishers and authors’ ideal audiences for their research. Demographic questions were also included in the survey to enable analysis by fields such as region and discipline. Results NPG and Palgrave Macmillan are making the survey data publicly available on figshare (http://figshare.com/articles/Author_Insights_2015_survey/1425362), and welcomes others to use the data for further analysis and to share their findings in the spirit of an open dialogue on how we might improve the publishing process. Similarly, NPG welcomes any suggestions for improvements from the wider community to ensure the survey is a neutral representation of the author’s perspective in future years. Some of the data has been redacted to ensure respondent privacy. This report is intended to be a brief guide to some of the issues contained within the data. It is important to note that the survey is not designed to be a comprehensive piece of research into every issue, nor to be an academically rigorous study.
    [Show full text]
  • Adapting to Plan S: Experiences from an Open Science Publisher
    Adapting to Plan S: experiences from an open science publisher Hannah Wilson Associate Publisher, F1000Research [email protected] @hannahluwilson Adapting to Plan S: experiences from an open science publisher 1. What is F1000Research? 2. How are publishers adapting? 3. How can open publishers add value? 4. How can we look beyond the APC model? © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd What is F1000Research? Open access Open peer review ▪ CC–BY ▪ Author-led ▪ APC model ▪ No blinding Open data ▪ Citable reviews ▪ FAIR data principles ▪ Co-reviewing ▪ Enforced before acceptance © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd How are publishers adapting to Plan S? Transformative agreements Limitations ▪ Budgets still eaten up by big publishers ▪ APC model not accessible to all What does this mean for smaller, open publishers? © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd What value can we add? Commitment to all aspects of open science ▪ Open data ▪ At F1000Research we enforce our data policy strictly ▪ Rarely seen in publications outside the data field (e.g. Scientific Data and GigaScience) ▪ Journal of Open Source Software – example of community-led innovation on this front © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd What value can we add? Commitment to all aspects of open science ▪ Open data ▪ Transparent article evaluation ▪ At F1000Research open peer review means no blinding and publication of reports ▪ We also have no editorial bias in the publication process – no rejections on impact or novelty © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd How can we look beyond the current APC model? Institutional agreements Partnering with funders Partnering with underrepresented communities © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd Summary Transformative agreements are an initial step Open publishers must show their worth and add value As an industry we must look beyond the APC model © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd Thank you [email protected] @hannahluwilson © 2000-2019 Faculty of 1000 Ltd.
    [Show full text]